[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'B')ut then, the US has a tiny potential for biofuels compared to other regions.

[lorenzo]

Common boys, yes, English is not my native language. But this is not about me, nor about my English skills.

Is that really all you can do? Trying to shoot the messenger. How poor. A real sign of the weak.


This is about the most credible and comprehensive fields study on cellulosic biofuel feedstocks.

And about how that study debunks your EROEI-gurus.



You're really showing you can't cope with science. Everything you've said so far is that a poster has no credibility because he puts a link to a scientific study in here. I understand why people don't really take you guys serious.

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'B')ut then, the US has a tiny potential for biofuels compared to other regions.

[PopeGideon]

Read it. Unimpressed.

These studies are all tainted with assumption.

You want to convince me?

Do this - it shouldn't be too difficult, with millions in taxpayer assistance.


Set up a farm that is entirely run on the ethanol it produces.

Entirely.

That's it. No petroleum input at all.


Perhaps start it out with oil in year 1.

Then wean off the oil within a few years.

What's that? You need petroleum inputs?

Then you're hardly "renewable."

Even with fertilizers and petroleum, I'd guess that the actual EROEI is substantially less than what is being claimed.

It's like the biosphere experiment where they put those people in the bubble. It all looks good on paper, but 6 months later they're all starving.

So set the farm up with a tractor that can run on ethanol, have it harvest its own hay, use fertilizer that it makes, and so on.

You start looking at it that way, and you realize very quickly that there are hundreds of hidden petroleum inputs into the system that papers such as the Schmer paper are ignoring.


It's all prideful eggheads and corporate pigs arguing on paper until somebody actually tries to make the whole thing sustainable by eliminating oil from it entirely.

Further, even if the Cornell and Cali guys are wrong about the negative EROEI, who cares?

In the end, we all know it's not about "is there some available?"

It's about, "how much does it cost?"

There'll always be some available. But if cellulosic ethanol costs 20 bucks a gallon to produce when oil is at 200 a barrel, then we might as well drink it and get some real value out of it.

This study, while ostensibly detailing all inputs, relies on significant assumptions.

If they want to remove the assumptions, they will remove the oil inputs.

Until then, biofuels are still a tragedy in the making.

[Permanently_Baffled]

I am confused.

Going back to Aarons point, can you clarify something for me please Lorenzo?

Was the energy profit calculated on the return of 5,000 barrels per acre or 200,000 barrels per acre?

In other words if they put x barrels of energy inputs in and they calculated the profit on getting 200,000 back (when they in fact only got 5,000), then surely that means that they DID NOT get a 540% return in energy invested?

Or was the 5000 barrels produced at a 540% energy proft? (ie it took less than a 1000 barrels of energy equivelant to produce?)

Please someone clarify

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'S')o I'm not so sure this is all merely "theoretical".

[quizz]

Well this was on page 3 (reference 14 is Pimentel D, Patzek TW (2005):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')A previous study (14) reported a negative energy balance for
ethanol derived from switchgrass by assuming that high levels of
agricultural inputs (Fig. 2) would be required, and that nonrenewable
energy would be needed to generate power for a
cellulosic ethanol biorefinery. Feasibility research indicates that
the lignaceous portion of plant biomass remaining after saccrification
and fermentation can be used to power the cellulosic
ethanol biorefinery and potentially could be used to generate
additional electricity to sell to the electrical grid as a byproduct.

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', 'I') am confused.

Going back to Aarons point, can you clarify something for me please Lorenzo?

Was the energy profit calculated on the return of 5,000 barrels per acre or 200,000 barrels per acre?

In other words if they put x barrels of energy inputs in and they calculated the profit on getting 200,000 back (when they in fact only got 5,000), then surely that means that they DID NOT get a 540% return in energy invested?

Or was the 5000 barrels produced at a 540% energy proft? (ie it took less than a 1000 barrels of energy equivelant to produce?)

Please someone clarify

[jbrovont]

Hey - Let's put this in perspective! They're reporting a return on energy investment of about 5.4:1 - that's good! I think the number I hear tossed around for bio fuels is usually around 2:1 to 3:1, so 5.4:1 is a significant improvement.

On the other hand, oil is around 30-32:1, correct? So we're still short. You guys don't have to flame eachother over this. I don't think it's really an argument whether or not bio fuels fall short of black gold on energy return - it's obvious. I think it's reasonable to expect that as bio fuels are used and studied and produced more, there will be improvements in the process and the data, and we'll see a lot of adjustment in the numbers. We've got more than 100 years of data on oil, and not even a decade's worth on large scale bio fuel production.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'W')ait a minute, the fact that a BBC reporter can't read a scientific study is not my problem.

I strictly don't care about what a blogger thinks, nor what a BBC reporter thinks, not what amateurs like Pimental and Patzek think, nor about how they screw up or can't read studies, or how they try to twist science in favor of their amateurish fictions.

All I care about is scientific results. A large-scale trial in the main targeted growing area showed switchgrass biofuels have an NEV of 540%.

It doesn't matter what you try to do with these data. The data won't change just because you don't like them or because you write about them over at your amateur blog.

540%. That's all.

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')here is no cellulosic ethanol production anywhere in the world.

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbrovont', 'H')ey - Let's put this in perspective! They're reporting a return on energy investment of about 5.4:1 - that's good! I think the number I hear tossed around for bio fuels is usually around 2:1 to 3:1, so 5.4:1 is a significant improvement.

On the other hand, oil is around 30-32:1, correct? So we're still short. You guys don't have to flame eachother over this. I don't think it's really an argument whether or not bio fuels fall short of black gold on energy return - it's obvious. I think it's reasonable to expect that as bio fuels are used and studied and produced more, there will be improvements in the process and the data, and we'll see a lot of adjustment in the numbers. We've got more than 100 years of data on oil, and not even a decade's worth on large scale bio fuel production.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'W')ait a minute, the fact that a BBC reporter can't read a scientific study is not my problem.

I strictly don't care about what a blogger thinks, nor what a BBC reporter thinks, not what amateurs like Pimental and Patzek think, nor about how they screw up or can't read studies, or how they try to twist science in favor of their amateurish fictions.

All I care about is scientific results. A large-scale trial in the main targeted growing area showed switchgrass biofuels have an NEV of 540%.

It doesn't matter what you try to do with these data. The data won't change just because you don't like them or because you write about them over at your amateur blog.

540%. That's all.

[mkwin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n the other hand, oil is around 30-32:1, correct?

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lorenzo', 'T')o get rid of your confusion, the best thing you can do is read the study yourself.

The report is open access. Here you go:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0704767105v1

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n the other hand, oil is around 30-32:1, correct?

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')here is no cellulosic ethanol production anywhere in the world.